Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The city is the anchor of the region. Let it wither, and the region withers. This is a metro-wide issue, because if the anchor ceases to be magnetic, then what reason does the rest of the metro have for existing? It is every metro city's responsibility to support the city of STL - financially, politically, whatever - in rebuilding public schools and attracting quality residents to the city core, because this will have positive cascading effects for the entire region that return more than their cost. And in the process it will make the city expensive enough to disperse many urban poor to areas where they will have more attractive social and economic opportunities - i.e. unconcentrate the multigenerational poverty and nihilism, lessening crime and blight, and furthering the cycle of renewal - while also providing much better social and economic opportunities for those urban poor that remain. One problem right now, is that it is too inexpensive for parents to send their kids to private schools. The south side of STL should be booming with quality schools per the OP's point, but it isn't because those folks all took the easy and destructive way out. That alternative needs to disappear.
Ok, lets start with what we agree on, St. Louis City needs better public schools (as do numerous parts of St. Louis County). The issue seems to stem from how we achieve these goals. If south city is booming (which parts are) and there ARE quality families moving in, with higher incomes which should help increase and broaden the tax base. These families are currently providing income to St. Louis City public schools, all the while they're spending more of their hard earned money putting their children in private schools. So as I see it, St. Louis Public Schools are getting additional revenues without the added expenses of additional students, additional facilities, and larger faculty costs...so why can't the city seem to make steps at improving the public school system still? Throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix the situation, it'll put more burden on the families who are already there...which will give them two options, live on less so you can continue to keep your kids in private school, or leave the city for better schools in the county.
We need to fix the city public schools which means fixing administrations, faculty, and facilities. The easiest time to do this will be when your enrollment numbers are down, but your financial means are available...As far as everyone supporting the city, I can agree on that to a good extent. People wouldn't be moving to the area if the city wasn't here...but if the city wasn't here I'd also wonder how many jobs would really be lost. Many businesses aren't located in Downtown St. Louis anymore. We have numerous highrise buildings, but the businesses are spread far and wide across the metro region...I'm not willing to say that St. Louis City needs to do more to improve the quality of schools in St. Louis County, and I wouldn't be willing to say the opposite either.
^The second to last sentence is everything wrong with the region. STL City still employs a HUGE amount of the workforce. But even if they didn't, "city living" is what attracts a young workforce like myself and my husband. The attitude of "It's not my problem, I work in Creve Coeur" is unfortunately common. A talented workforce does not want to live in a suburban city, as you can see with the gentrification of cities across the country, Gen Y and Z want walkable, urban, and exciting cities! Luckily, I've seen a lot of progress in STL city, but the old timer attitude needs to go.
I think it's fairly split, much of what's happened within the last 10-15 years is the result of Gen X and Gen Y wanting those urban locations. I'm sure as time goes on, the same city vibe wanting individuals will gradually move to the burbs as well....this may not happen, but it's entirely possible...other side of that coin is that these individuals stay within the city proper that they've grown to love...only time will tell.
I know i've stated it before, but of all the Gen X and Gen Y (of which I am apart) folks that I know, it's a split between who's in the city and who's in the burbs...with a slight edge favoring the county. All of these individuals are college educated professionals, mostly coming from a suburban upbringing (similar to what most other middle class kids had). Considering the depth of this recession, I think people will move to wherever they can find work, despite the urban or suburban or even rural nature of the environment. However, if two cities are competing, one with a vibrant urban core, and the other with a absolutely bland suburban sprawl, i think the vibrant urban core will win. To say it's what's necessary for success is a bit of a misnomer however, location, cost of living, job availability, potential earnings, and quality of life would all be major factors in considering a move...and most of the major metros across the country will offer some form of this, with subtle differences.
I think it would be disengenuous to overlook the hard work that many in the St. Louis area have done on the schools. Improvements in the neighborhood schools has been, and likely will continue be, exceedingly slow to come, but St. Louis, for its size, actually has a very strong magnet program with several viable options for those willing to do the legwork.
The long history of parochial schools acting in part as the neighborhood school of choice for families in St. Louis due to its very large Catholic presence should also not be overlooked.
If you look for defeatism you'll certainly find it, but there are many people in St. Louis who care a great deal about this issue and are working toward solutions.
My .02 cents: Some neighborhood schools, such as Sherman Elementary (a non magnet school) in Shaw neighborhood, are the centerpieces of their neighborhoods, and Shaw residents are encouraged to send their children to the school. As a former Shaw resident, I've heard good things about it, but without kids, I do not know if students are receiving a "quality" education (and I distrust sites that arbitrarily "rank" schools and school districts).
Although I agree with you that arbitrary rankings don't tell the whole story, MAP scores can be pretty illuminating and the simple fact is that not one 5th grader at Sherman Elementary scored at or above proficient on the 2011 Science MAP tests. Not one.
Their scores in the lower grades were better, which could induce some parents to consider it a stop-gap measure while they figure out other magnet, private, or selling-their-house-and-moving-to-Webster-Groves options, but it's going to take a lot of effort to convince middle class families that their kid can get a decent education at even the "best" neighborhood schools in SLPS.
Neighborhood schools have, in Chicago as an example, been "turned" by great parents who care, but I'm not certain St. Louis has any one neighborhood with the "crictical mass" of gentrification necessary to accomplish that very difficult task.
Ok, lets start with what we agree on, St. Louis City needs better public schools (as do numerous parts of St. Louis County). The issue seems to stem from how we achieve these goals. If south city is booming (which parts are) and there ARE quality families moving in, with higher incomes which should help increase and broaden the tax base. These families are currently providing income to St. Louis City public schools, all the while they're spending more of their hard earned money putting their children in private schools. So as I see it, St. Louis Public Schools are getting additional revenues without the added expenses of additional students, additional facilities, and larger faculty costs...so why can't the city seem to make steps at improving the public school system still? Throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix the situation, it'll put more burden on the families who are already there...which will give them two options, live on less so you can continue to keep your kids in private school, or leave the city for better schools in the county.
We need to fix the city public schools which means fixing administrations, faculty, and facilities. The easiest time to do this will be when your enrollment numbers are down, but your financial means are available...As far as everyone supporting the city, I can agree on that to a good extent. People wouldn't be moving to the area if the city wasn't here...but if the city wasn't here I'd also wonder how many jobs would really be lost. Many businesses aren't located in Downtown St. Louis anymore. We have numerous highrise buildings, but the businesses are spread far and wide across the metro region...I'm not willing to say that St. Louis City needs to do more to improve the quality of schools in St. Louis County, and I wouldn't be willing to say the opposite either.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is thinking that better administrators, teachers, and facilities will fix the problem. Schools are rated based on test scores, and compared with other schools in the state that take the same standardized test. While a good administration and excellent teachers can have a positive impact on a school the caliber of the kids and their families have a FAR GREATER impact on those test scores. You can take all proven, high quality teachers, all with masters degrees and stick them in an inner city school with unlimited money to spend. They will not perform as high as students in a wealthy suburb taught by all first-year teachers. The focus on education is different in the family unit and that has WAY more of an impact than administration or teachers.
So for the school to score better and be perceived better those well off parents moving to the city have to actually have their kids ATTEND those schools to make a real impact.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is thinking that better administrators, teachers, and facilities will fix the problem. Schools are rated based on test scores, and compared with other schools in the state that take the same standardized test. While a good administration and excellent teachers can have a positive impact on a school the caliber of the kids and their families have a FAR GREATER impact on those test scores. You can take all proven, high quality teachers, all with masters degrees and stick them in an inner city school with unlimited money to spend. They will not perform as high as students in a wealthy suburb taught by all first-year teachers. The focus on education is different in the family unit and that has WAY more of an impact than administration or teachers.
So for the school to score better and be perceived better those well off parents moving to the city have to actually have their kids ATTEND those schools to make a real impact.
How can you know that -- it's essentially never happened. Wealthy school districts collect more property taxes which allows them to pay teachers better and thus hire teachers with more experience. To assume the above might be easy, but it's by no means a proven fact -- it's just a lazy party line.
If you'd said that given the same caliber teachers, same class sizes, same quality of textbooks and technology that schools made up primarily of poor students will perform worse than a wealthy counterpart might well be accurate, but the question isn't about better than it's about getting a decent education period. So even if the scores might not be as high if they were, in fact, simply higher, that would be significant progress in my book.
How can you know that -- it's essentially never happened. Wealthy school districts collect more property taxes which allows them to pay teachers better and thus hire teachers with more experience. To assume the above might be easy, but it's by no means a proven fact -- it's just a lazy party line.
If you'd said that given the same caliber teachers, same class sizes, same quality of textbooks and technology that schools made up primarily of poor students will perform worse than a wealthy counterpart might well be accurate, but the question isn't about better than it's about getting a decent education period. So even if the scores might not be as high if they were, in fact, simply higher, that would be significant progress in my book.
Well obviously I can't KNOW that. But that is my opinion.
Wealthy school districts collect more taxes but that doesn't equate to better salaries. As a matter of fact it's usually the exact opposite. Inner city districts generally pay more because they have to. No one would take less money to teach in a school with far more discipline problems, teach a large number of kids that don't care because their parents don't care, and have the risk of the state taking the school over at any time. I do know this because I am a teacher.
Not sure what party line you assume I'm towing.
The problem is that when a school has ONLY poor students, it is fighting a huge uphill battle. It will never achieve the test scores to allow itself to appear as anything but bad when compared to schools made up of kids that have educated parents. My point is having an educated parent, that instills discipline, work ethic, and demands that school is a priority is exponentially more impactful on a students success than the quality of the administrators, teachers, or facilities. And so if you have a school where the vast majority of students come from households that don't instill these values then you will have a poor performing school. At least if the school had a mix of kids then the students that did not get positive examples at home would see them in the other students. This is why Brown v. Board of Ed ruled that segregated schools were inherently unequal. It doesn't matter if they are segregated by law or in fact. It also does not matter if they are segregated by race or ability. This is common sense to me.
I've taught in low income schools that got greatschools ratings of 1, and met awesome teachers at those schools. I've taught in schools that have ratings of 8 and 9 with some very poor teachers. There are great teachers at low performing schools that get blamed for low test scores when they are doing everything they can do, but the kids just don't care. And when the vast majority of them don't care it's always going to remain that way.
Well obviously I can't KNOW that. But that is my opinion.
Wealthy school districts collect more taxes but that doesn't equate to better salaries. As a matter of fact it's usually the exact opposite. Inner city districts generally pay more because they have to. No one would take less money to teach in a school with far more discipline problems, teach a large number of kids that don't care because their parents don't care, and have the risk of the state taking the school over at any time. I do know this because I am a teacher.
Not sure what party line you assume I'm towing.
The problem is that when a school has ONLY poor students, it is fighting a huge uphill battle. It will never achieve the test scores to allow itself to appear as anything but bad when compared to schools made up of kids that have educated parents. My point is having an educated parent, that instills discipline, work ethic, and demands that school is a priority is exponentially more impactful on a students success than the quality of the administrators, teachers, or facilities. And so if you have a school where the vast majority of students come from households that don't instill these values then you will have a poor performing school. At least if the school had a mix of kids then the students that did not get positive examples at home would see them in the other students. This is why Brown v. Board of Ed ruled that segregated schools were inherently unequal. It doesn't matter if they are segregated by law or in fact. It also does not matter if they are segregated by race or ability. This is common sense to me.
I've taught in low income schools that got greatschools ratings of 1, and met awesome teachers at those schools. I've taught in schools that have ratings of 8 and 9 with some very poor teachers. There are great teachers at low performing schools that get blamed for low test scores when they are doing everything they can do, but the kids just don't care. And when the vast majority of them don't care it's always going to remain that way.
I have rarely seen that to be the case, but that's fairly anecdotal, I'll admit. As such, here's just a few of the whole host of available news articles and academic papers supporting the fact that students in poor districts tend to have teachers of a lower caliber/experience level -- generally due to disparities in pay, but also certainly, as you point out, due to the difficulties that arise in recruiting experienced teachers to poor schools:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
